Text Size

Indeed, upon Stevens retirement, Obama listed as a top criteria for selecting a successor “someone who, like Justice Stevens, knows that in a democracy, powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens.” And in introducing Kagan as his pick Monday, Obama praised her for deciding to argue Citizens United as her first Supreme Court case (she could have punted it to a deputy), asserting the decision “says a great deal not just about Elena's tenacity but about her commitment to serving the American people. I think it says a great deal about her commitment to protect our fundamental rights, because in a democracy, powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens.”

“Obama clearly sees this as a political winner for the midterm campaigns and he wants to fight this issue in a political arena, so he is trying to elevate it as much as he can,” said Jeff Patch of the Center for Competitive Politics, a non-profit group that opposes many restrictions on campaign spending as infringements on free speech.

But Patch said Kagan hurt the cause of campaign finance regulation in Citizens United by deviating from the central argument in the Austin case – that immense corporate spending could disproportionately shape and distort voters’ opinions on elections.

Instead, Kagan argued that corporate-funded ads could corrupt the politicians benefitting from them and violate the will of shareholders whose money might be spent on them.

“That was a tactical error that was beneficial to people like us who think that campaign finance regulations are too burdensome,” said Patch.

Roberts at the time pointed out that Kagan was asking the justices “to uphold Austin on the basis of two arguments, two principles, two compelling interests we have never accepted.” And in a concurring opinion to Kennedy’s majority opinion, Roberts asserted “the government’s case for reaffirming Austin depends on radically reconceptualizing its reasoning.”

Kagan’s abandoning the holding in Austin that corporate ad spending distorts public opinion “gave an opening (which Chief Justice Roberts took) to further denigrate the rationale by saying: Look, even the government has abandoned it,” said Rick Hasen, a professor at Los Angeles’s Loyola Law School who specializes in election law and usually favors restrictions on campaign spending.

“The government should have fought the good fight, which would have further allowed the dissent to make a full throated defense of the argument, for the day when there is again a majority on the Supreme Court willing to uphold the constitutionality of reasonable campaign finance regulation,” Hasen said in an email.

But, he added, no matter what tactic she used “it would not have changed the votes of any of the Justices in the current majority.”

To be sure, Kagan stepped into a tough spot in Citizens United, which was first argued before the court by a Deputy Solicitor General named Malcolm Stewart in March 2009, only days after Kagan took office. Under questioning from Justice Samuel Alito, Stewart famously asserted that the campaign finance laws in question could be used to restrict corporate or union funding of books that advocated the election or defeat of candidates.

The court called for a rare rehearing of the case, with an expanded breadth, in September, at which Kagan said to nervous laughter in the courtroom that “the government's answer has changed” on the book issue. Although Kagan asserted parts of the campaign finance law could be applied to full-length books, she pointed out that the Federal Election Commission had never sought to do so and asserted that any such effort could be subject to a “quite good as-applied challenge.”

Citizens United aside, political money watchers are searching everywhere for hints about Kagan’s own campaign finance views, which are largely undefined. Some have pointed out that the administration official who handled her vetting, White House Counsel Bob Bauer, until a few years ago had been a vocal critic of some efforts to restrict political spending. Others have noted that Kagan during her years in the Clinton administration helped prepare a memo advising the White House on how to advocate for the McCain-Feingold legislation.

It is legitimate to ask what her writings reveal about her position on this and that. But it is only speculation. As a Justice, she will over the long haul, face difficult questions that are unknown to any of us today. I'm pleased she is a moderate Democrat of a similar bent as President Obama and Bill Clinton. Ideologues of the left or right are not my cup o tea, especially on the Supreme Court.

It is legitimate to ask what her writings reveal about her position on this and that. But it is only speculation. As a Justice, she will over the long haul, face difficult questions that are unknown to any of us today. I'm pleased she is a moderate Democrat of a similar bent as President Obama and Bill Clinton. Ideologues of the left or right are not my cup o tea, especially on the Supreme Court.

Let's see. Obama is "worried about drowning out the voices of ordinary citizens. But when Obama and his party voted for health care change, he totally ignored the VOICES OF ORDINARY CITIZENS who wanted it to be fiscally responsible. The "voices of ordinary citizens" are also being drowned out regarding immigration reform. Obama is nothing more than a sweet talking hypocrite.

Whenever Obama doesn't get his way, he accuses opponents of being Anti-American. He is a classic name caller, or perhaps "gutter snipe" fits the description better.

American has long been a centrist nation. When we swing too far to the left or the right, we invariably swing back towards the other direction. If America has a fault, when we shift direction too far in one direction, we compensate by swing too far in the opposite direction. This is precisely what's happening today, except that we're swinging too far to the left, and far too soon.

Hopefully, when we swing back, we'll stop dead center, to the chagrin of the extremists on the left and on the right.

The Progressives/Liberals/RINOs & CINOs/Socialists & Communists picked the absolute WORST time in U.S. history to pull off the takeover of America.

Key Downfalls Listed:

• They made their move when BOOMERs were getting older, and subsequently, more conservative in their ways. • They made their move right after a market crash, which caused about 1/3 of Boomers’ retirement to evaporate. This instant loss of wealth shifted public perception to, highly anti-establishment sentiment. • They made their move thinking that, all they had already gained control over mainstream media (ie: MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS); however their media power grab failed to include the internet as a major media outlet that would circumvent their control over the media AND allow for immediate postings of ALL sources of info (including info damaging to progressives and their adjenda). • Because of the collapse of the economy, they sped up their takeover plans (turned up the heat too fast). From massive bailouts to private sector takeovers, they forced open the eyes of the American people to their plan of transforming America into a Socialist republic. Had they gone slower, it might have worked. • Because they sped up their plans, they had to scramble in their efforts to disarm America, further convincing the American people that a passive takeover underway. Why else would the government disarm its people? • Much to their surprise, the two-party system has now become suspect, by ordinary U.S. citizens, who now investigate their political parties for treasonous, anti-Constitutionalist participants: Liberal Extremists, Progressives, RINOs and CINOs. • From Climate/Carbon taxation, to attempts of small weapons treaties to circumvent the Second Amendment, they are pulling out all the stops to have the U.S. people answer to U.N. (global) mandates, in an effort to consolidate control. It is glaringly obvious in recent bills. Since then, states have begun to fight back, passing FireArms Freedom Acts, to protect their citizens from the Federal Government’s desire to confiscate weapons.

Bottom Line: They lost their ‘goldilocks’ moment to grab power, and the American People have awoken and are turning against the current Progressive-infected Government! Internet posts, from citizens’ all across America, are urging a common reply to this attempted takeover: VOTE ALL THE INCUMBENTS OUT and put true Conservatives in office. There is a massive political shift to the right, underway – you are witnessing a crumbling progressive coup at this time, which will go down in the history books as the failed hijacking of America.

It will be a long time before the American People extend them any degree of legitimacy and trust, again. Another 30 years will have to pass, whilst they change their identity, and turn up the Progressive/Socialist heat on our citizens again.

Prediction: Within 6 months a pic of Sotomajor and Kagan will appear. It will show them holding hands coming out of a B&B in the Berkshires. In the same photo Ginsburg will be seen in the upper left window wearing a rubber suit and holding a Coke can bearing a pubic hair. When the pic is published the media will accuse Clarence Thomas of placing the pubic hair on the Coke can. Anita Hill will then be booked for an appearance on Larry Kink to explain how all of the carpet munchers got on the Supreme Court. Larry will end the interview by slipping a note to Hill asking for a date. Anita and her girlfriend will then storm off the set. Thats my prediction.

That is a stale drum beat. "We" the people was never a suit that fit Republicans or their offspring, Tea Partiers. A majority of American voters elected Democrats in the last two elections. Democrats delivered promised health care reform. Today Democrats are working to deliver energy and climate, immigration, an education reform - all as promised.

Obama is not a moderate.This appointment has only to do with what the Democrats "want" the law to be not what the law should be. Kagan is bright and very well educated. I think she just might be her own person if confirmed but there is little doubt that she is very liberal.

That is a stale drum beat. "We" the people was never a suit that fit Republicans or their offspring, Tea Partiers. A majority of American voters elected Democrats in the last two elections. Democrats delivered promised health care reform. Today Democrats are working to deliver energy and climate, immigration, an education reform - all as promised.

and a majority of voters will vote them out in 2010/2012...Independents make the difference and we are not sticking with the liberals...

Republicans will make gains in November, that's the pattern. But not as great as is customary and Republicans will have the Tea Party to thank for that. As for 2012, I believe President Obama will be reelected. That's the pattern too barring a bad economy, see Bush v Clinton. The economy is and has been on an up turn for a number of months and by 2012, the Great Recession will be history. Add to that health care reform, financial regulation, energy and climate, and education reform, and Democrats will have a breath takiing record of accomplishment in only one term. But a lot can happen between now and then. What will drive the next presidential election is not yet known to any of us. We'll see.

Kashman: May. 11, 2010 - 6:07 PM EST

This appointment has only to do with what the Democrats "want" the law to be not what the law should be.

At least in one category Kagan appears to echo the liberal tome: "individual wealth also derives from governmental action." For those who thought individual wealth was derived from the physical, fiscal and intellectual efforts of the individual, and government action came into play in its transfer from the individual to the state, this will come as something of a shock. It is the government that gives us wealth, not the other way around, according to our new Justice. According to Leahy, this (Kagan) is the "best America has to offer." If we lower our expectations any more, Harriet Miers with be Chief Justice.

So you see this as a liberal statement. Most would view it as a Republican view. Nevertheless, she wrote "also" and that is certainly true. Ask Wall Street if individual wealth is not influenced by government action or inaction. Why do you think Wall Street and Republicans are resisting finanical regulations. Why do you think corporations invest so heavily in lobbying.

It is legitimate to ask what her writings reveal about her position on this and that. But it is only speculation. As a Justice, she will over the long haul, face difficult questions that are unknown to any of us today. I'm pleased she is a moderate Democrat of a similar bent as President Obama and Bill Clinton. Ideologues of the left or right are not my cup o tea, especially on the Supreme Court.

Are you joking? Obama is an exteme ideolog but you worship him. The only reason he can't get his agenda through is that he doesn't have the spine or ability.

You personalize this too much. Democrats passed health care reform and the economic stimulus. Soon we'll have financial regulation. Energy and climate, immigration reform. Some parts of education reform have already been inacted, more will follow.

Congress, not the president, passes laws. That's a large, diverse body. Difficult to pass major legislation under any circumstances but more so when Republicans for the most part refuse to participate. Even so, the passage of health care reform alone was an accomplishment not seen since the era of Civil Rights and back to FDR.

Michel, come on. We are all aware of the means by which these "accomplishments" were shoved through. OF COURSE the President does not pass laws. And Congress is not quite as "diverse" as you are pretending it to be. Where are you from? Please do a little self-reflection and figure out for yourself how this government (and most governments, for that matter), work. Yes, Bush slowly moved to the left. Yes, Obama LURCHED to the left. He is too arrogant, too indoctrinated, too out of touch, too spineless, too foolish, too weak, too elitist, and too clueless to admit to himself that the way this nation was intended to work is the best, and only, way for it to remain a beacon of wealth, opportunity, power, justice, and prosperity. Please do some research and figure everything out for yourself. LISTEN to the other side, even if you don't agree with them. If they're so very wrong, what could be the harm in humoring them for a few minutes of your life?? You don't seem as hateful as most liberals who comment on these boards, and that is definitely refreshing. Once you realize that the majority of liberal "causes" the leftists pretend to uphold and defend are actually fronts for more sinister, power-grabbing intentions, you may just change your mind.

Please try not to judge me, I have considered myself an independent/moderate for the majority of my life, but this administration and it's evils have awakened me to things I could have never imagined.

Michel, come on. We are all aware of the means by which these "accomplishments" were shoved through. OF COURSE the President does not pass laws. And Congress is not quite as "diverse" as you are pretending it to be. Where are you from? Please do a little self-reflection and figure out for yourself how this government (and most governments, for that matter), work. Yes, Bush slowly moved to the left. Yes, Obama LURCHED to the left. He is too arrogant, too indoctrinated, too out of touch, too spineless, too foolish, too weak, too elitist, and too clueless to admit to himself that the way this nation was intended to work is the best, and only, way for it to remain a beacon of wealth, opportunity, power, justice, and prosperity. Please do some research and figure everything out for yourself. LISTEN to the other side, even if you don't agree with them. If they're so very wrong, what could be the harm in humoring them for a few minutes of your life?? You don't seem as hateful as most liberals who comment on these boards, and that is definitely refreshing. Once you realize that the majority of liberal "causes" the leftists pretend to uphold and defend are actually fronts for more sinister, power-grabbing intentions, you may just change your mind.

Please try not to judge me, I have considered myself an independent/moderate for the majority of my life, but this administration and it's evils have awakened me to things I could have never imagined.

We are all aware of the means by which these "accomplishments" were shoved through.

I'm a proud Democrat. But like you, I'm a moderate. Used to be a liberal but Bill Clinton won me over. You have to get something done is how he put it.

This "shoved through" or "crammed down our throats" business has gotten old. It's called getting out voted in the democratic process. Antis seem to suggest it was and is illegitimate for the majority to pass legislation with which they do not agree.

I'm no foe of the Republican Party. The antimosity comes not from moderate Democrats but from the right-wing - the Tea Party.

Too many too's. No substance there. Bordering on adolescent name calling.